1 Followership is associated with many negative characteristics such as being passive, having a

lower status, possessing less intelligence, receiving lower pay, order-taking, providing less value,
or avoiding risk. And yet, leadership, followership, and context combine to form a coherent
whole. We need to start by understanding followers in the same depth as our understanding of
leaders. This chapter addresses why we should care about followers and followership and how it
can be explained to others.

Why Followership?

Ronald E. Riggio

When Jean Lipman-Blumen, Ira Chaleff, and I hosted the 16th Kravis-de Roulet Leadership
Conference, titled Rethinking Followership, in February 2006—arguably the very first
conference devoted entirely to the study of followership—we spent the better part of the first
day discussing the neg- ative associations invoked by the term “follower” (Rost, 1993,
2008). Par- ticipants argued and offered a number of alternative terms—“constituent” (too
political), “partner” (too relationship-py), “collaborator” (too World War II-ish),
“member” (as in Leader–Member Exchange), and the like. I think at some point in order
to move the discussion forward, I suggested that we should give up the search and just keep
using the term “follower.” If we wrote about and studied both leaders AND followers, I
asserted, the academic community, and perhaps later, the world, would accept follower and
followership and we could move forward. [You can read what came out of the conference in The
Art of Followership book: Riggio, Chaleff, and Lipman-Blumen, 2008].

Well, things have certainly changed in the past decade and a half. There are well over 1,000
published research articles, books, and chapters with “follower” in the title. There have
been several conferences devoted strictly to the study and practice of followers and followership.
And, Microsoft Word no longer tries to autocorrect the term “followership” and turn it into
“fellowship.” The general public lags behind, however, because we still see people stating
indignantly that “they are a leader, not a follower,” and the traditional stereotypes of
followers as passive, less important, and less desirable are still common (see Collinson, 2006).
But perhaps this too will

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP, no. 167, Fall 2020 © 2020 Wiley
Periodicals LLC Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) ∙ DOI:
10.1002/yd.20395 15

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?
doi=10.1002%2Fyd.20395&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-08-24

16 FOLLOWERSHIP EDUCATION

change with time. The reality is that followers are important. They are, per- haps, more important
than leaders because, without followers, leaders are out of a job.
There are three main elements that come together to construct leader- ship: the leader, the
follower, and the context, broadly defined. Leave any of these out and we get an incomplete
picture of leadership. We know that the leader-centric nature of most leadership research has
given short shrift to the important role of followers, but attention is now also being paid to
including the context, as well as the followers, in leadership research and practice (e.g.,
Liden&Antonakis, 2009). This triad has been popularized by Kellerman (2012), but emphasis on
the role that followers and the context play in leadership dates back to Mary Parker Follett
(1949) and Kurt Lewin (1947). Still, it is hard to pull away from our leader-centrism (McCusker,
Foti, & Abraham, 2019; Riggio, 2019). But we must.

The Followers Have Always Been There, But Have Been Hidden

While the earliest research on leadership was primarily focused on the leader—looking at leader
traits, competencies, and/or behaviors—the 1970s saw the rise of interactional theories of
leadership that incorporated leader behaviors/styles and elements of the situation. For these
theories, followers were simply part of the context to which leaders had to adjust their behavior
in order to be effective. Situational leadership theory (SLT) is an obvious example (Hersey&
Blanchard, 1977). For SLT, the “situation” is the maturity and capabilities of the
followers. Leaders choose their behav- iors (directing, coaching, supporting, delegating) based
on what the follow- ers require, as determined by the leader. Fiedler’s contingency theory
also views followers as simply one element of the situation (i.e., leader–member relations),
with the structure of the task and the amount of power and authority the leader possesses by
virtue of her or his position in the organi- zation being the other two factors. Regardless, in all of
these approaches to leadership, the leader is the “lever” that moves the followers to action
and produces outcomes for the collective.

So-called “relational theories” of leadership, most notably, leader– member exchange

(LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Riggio, 2006), focus on the relation- ship between leaders and followers, but still remain leader-
centric. In each case, the leader, not the followers, is responsible for developing and main-
taining the quality of the leader–follower relationship. The followers are noted, but in the same
vein as situational theories, the leader’s behavior is what is central to the functioning of the
collective. Even theories that purport to be “follower-centric,” and we could include here
House’s (1971) path-goal theory and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970; Liden, Wayne,
Zhao, & Henderson, 2008), are theories of leaders, not of followers.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W
iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

WHY FOLLOWERSHIP? 17

Theories of Followers and Followership

It was Robert (Kelley, 1988; 1992) who first developed a theory that focused exclusively on
followers. His typology of followers drew a great deal of attention, but also criticism of the
“why-would-anyone-want-to-study- followers?” sort:

Some people just flat out didn’t like it, comparing followers to sled dogswhose destiny is to
always look at the rear end of the dog in front of them, but never to see the wider horizon or
make the decisions of the lead dog. (Kelley, 2008, p. 6)

Ira Chaleff (1995) also developed a typology of followers, approaching it from a practitioner
perspective that involved training employees in effective followership. Kellerman (2008)
focused on different types of followers and the role they played in influencing leaders, while
Lipman-Blumen (2006) explored the “dark side” of followers and the role they play in
supporting and enhancing toxic leadership.

Social identity and implicit leadership theories shifted the focus by asserting that leader and
leadership are social constructions created by followers (Hogg, 2001; Meindl, 1990; Schyns &
Meindl, 2005). In social identity theory, for example, it is group members/followers who con-
struct the role of leader and bestow it on the group member who is most prototypical—she or he
that best represents the values, motives, and goals of the collective (Hogg, 2001).

These lines of research led to a constructionist approach to follow- ership that emphasizes the co-
creation of leadership and followership that examines how people engage together in
relationships to construct leader and follower identities (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). For
example, DeRue and Ashford (2010) suggest that leadership and followership are co-
constructed through a reciprocal claiming and granting process, where an individual may claim
the leader (or follower) role and other members of the collective grant or do not grant the role.
Hurwitz and Hurwitz (2015) pro- pose a model of leadership and followership that suggests they
engage with each other to create collaborative partnerships, and, as a result, produce leadership.
Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien (2012) introduce the context into this process. The end result is that
leadership and followership are intricately interrelated and embedded in particular contexts.

Whither Followership?

In the context of over a century of studying leadership, we are still at the beginning of
followership research. There is a great deal of work to be done. In our review of followership
theory and research, Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten (2014) laid out some of the principles
and concerns that should

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense
18 FOLLOWERSHIP EDUCATION

guide research on followers and followership (and, of course, leadership in its broader form of
considering the interplay of leaders, followers, and context) moving forward. I will take the
liberty of summarizing those here (and perhaps adding a bit to them):

• We need to understand follower roles and behaviors in the same depth as our knowledge of
leaders. This is, in effect, “reversing the lens,” but we must do much more.

• We must understand that leaders and followers co-construct leadership in context and
understand both their individual contributions and the synergies created.

• To truly understand followership, we need to consider new method- ological approaches,
both quantitative and qualitative, and create new paradigms—refusing to fall into the same
narrow thinking that has dom- inated much of leadership research.

• We need to think about the outcomes of leadership and followership in new and creative
ways. As noted, we focus onwhat followers do as a result of leadership processes, not on
collective outcomes. Moving forward, we need to acknowledge the reciprocal nature of how
leadership affects both leaders and followers.

• Finally, at the theory level, we need to create new ways of looking at the process of
leadership, not in the traditional sense, but in terms of a complex process that incorporates what
leaders and followers do, how they influence and respond to one another, and how the context
plays a role in both stimulating leadership/followership, and how leaders and followers impact
the situation. The true process is fantastically complex, and our theories need to capture that
complexity.

What About the Implications for Practice?

Whilemuch of the stigma associated with the words “follower” and “follow- ership”
have been removed from the research literature on leadership and followership, when it comes to
developing followers much of the stigma remains. While there may be an “aha” experience
for many members of work organizations when they realize that followers are important
elements in the leadership equation (Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2015), there is still hesi- tance to lay
down money to pay for “follower development” in employee training programs, or
elsewhere. Why is this the case and what will help move us forward in follower development?

Most attempts to develop followers in the workplace focus on cultivat- ing follower behaviors
that have them go beyond the normal job descrip- tion. In other words, exemplary followers are
those who engage in extra- role behaviors—such as voluntarily taking on additional
responsibilities (Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2015), disagreeing with superiors’ courses of action
when the followers believe they are wrongheaded, dangerous, or immoral

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

WHY FOLLOWERSHIP? 19

(Chaleff, 1995), or going over and above “the call of duty.” Therein lies the problem. In
many traditional work organizations, rank-and-file employees are expected to comply only with
the tasks and duties that are outlined in their job descriptions. Rarely, do these job descriptions
include the very extra-role behaviors that are associated with exemplary followership. In fact,
human resources practices, and in the case of unionizedworkers, union guidelines, may even
prohibit engagement in such behaviors. Certainly, employees who adhere strictly to the tasks,
duties, and responsibilities cod- ified in their job descriptions may be satisfactory followers, but
we would certainly not call them “exemplary.” So, what is needed?

From a human resources perspective, we need to change the way we look at followers. Rather
than expecting employees to adhere strictly to their job descriptions (and, perhaps, engaging in
“additional duties as assigned”) we should consider followers’ roles to include extra-
role behaviors, making contributions to the unit’s leadership, and doing whatever is
necessary to achieve the goals of the collective (“additional duties that are in the best interests
of the leadership and the organization”). Indeed, research suggests that if exemplary
employee behaviors, typically defined as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs, such as
volunteering for extra duty and pos- itively promoting the organization) are incorporated into job
descriptions, they aremore likely to occur (Tepper&Taylor, 2003). Startup organizations and
cutting-edge tech companies, such as Netflix and Google, have recog- nized that having
followers adhere to job descriptions inhibits their cre- ativity and willingness to engage in
exemplary follower behaviors (Peretz, 2018).

If leaders in organizations begin to view employees through the lens of exemplary followership,
they will expand their expectations about what employees can and should do. This may mean not
only developing employ- ees into exemplary followers, but changing leaders’ mindsets to
value the critical role that followers play in co-constructing good leadership. When I talk to
respected top-level executives in organizations, I am finding more and more that the truly
effective leaders are beginning to understand what followership is all about. Therefore,
followership development is as much about changing leaders as it is about changing followers.

We need to include followers in leadership development programs. About 15 years ago, I was
invited to lead a workshop for a relatively small pharmaceutical company that was doing a
“leadership training retreat.” Instead of just working with the managers, department heads,
and execu- tives in the organization, the CEO had closed the doors of the company and had every
single employee attend the event, right down to the front office receptionist. As he stated at the
beginning of the program, “I want every- one in this company to think of himself or herself as
a leader.” This CEO understood that everyone in the organization contributed to its success.
This type of thinking needs to be more common. When we think of leader- ship development
efforts in organizations, all too often, followers are left out

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

20 FOLLOWERSHIP EDUCATION

of the leadership equation. But, let us reverse it. In the future, followership development
programs could be common. Organizations might recognize the need for all employees to learn
the “art” and method of followership, and that would include leaders. As James Maroosis
(2008) says (channeling Mary Parker Follett), “leadership…is a partnership in reciprocal
following.” Both followers and leaders need to learn how to follow well.

Another way to think about the development of followership is to focus on “citizenship”

rather than “followership.” This has applicability to followers in organizations (think
organizational citizenship behaviors), and to followers in politics and the community. Many of
the qualities of exemplary followers are also possessed by engaged, active, and impactful
citizens. For years, we helped to run a civic leadership program in our local community (see
Azzam & Riggio, 2003, for a description of these programs). Participants included those
whomight be identified as “leaders” in the community—elected officials, executives in
local businesses, heads of nonprofit organizations—but also included were sole proprietors of
local businesses, and some rank-and-file employees who were aspiring to leader- ship positions.
A large part of the curriculum was designed to make them more aware of what the local
community was all about, motivate them to become more engaged citizens, provide some basic
knowledge about lead- ership, and foster the development of skills (persuasion, conflict manage-
ment, etc.) that would serve to improve the performance of both leaders and followers.

Conclusion

There is little doubt that Western society has had a fascination, almost an obsession, with leaders
and leadership. Meindl (1995) laid this out decades ago in his notion of the “Romance of
Leadership.” In the wake of the corpo- rate scandals of the early 2000s and fueled by the
recognition that many of the world’s most powerful leaders have been less-than-admirable
tyrants or scandal-plagued, the positive glow has been taken (somewhat) off of leaders and
leadership. Still, in the past half century, the study of lead- ership has grown exponentially, while
followers, until very recently, were mostly ignored. This will and must change. We cannot truly
understand the leadership process until we have sufficient knowledge of followers and
followership. Put context into the equation, and we have a formidable task in front of us. We are
clearly making some progress, but not yet enough.

References
Azzam, T., & Riggio, R. E. (2003). Community based civic leadership programs: A descriptive
investigation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 55–67.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. NewYork: Free Press.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

WHY FOLLOWERSHIP? 21

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor &
Francis/Routledge.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Fran- cisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower

identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179–189.
DeRue, S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of
leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35,
627–647.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining
leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1043– 1062.

Follett, M. P. (1949). The essentials of leadership. London, UK: Management Publications Trust.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Devel- opment
of a leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-
level, multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219– 247.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human
resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psy- chology
Review, 5, 184–200.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16, 321–328.

Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2015). Leadership is half the story: A fresh look at follower- ship,
leadership, and collaboration. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing lead-
ership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: Harper-Collins. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In
praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 141–148. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The
power of followership. New York: Doubleday. Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In
R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman- Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership (pp. 5–15). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science;
Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 4–41.

Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological research. Human
Relations, 62, 587–605.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Devel-
opment of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly,
19, 161–177.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Maroosis, J. (2008). Leadership: A partnership in reciprocal following. In R. E. Riggio, I.

Chaleff, & J. Lipman -Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great
leaders and organizations (pp. 17–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCusker, M. E., Foti, R. J., & Abraham, E. K. (2019). Leadership research meth- ods:
Progressing back to process. In R. E. Riggio (Ed.), What’s wrong with leader- ship:
Improving leadership research and practice (pp. 9–40). New York: Taylor & Fran-
cis/Routledge.

Meindl, J. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 12, 159–203.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

22 FOLLOWERSHIP EDUCATION
Meindl, J. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social con-
structionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329–341.

Peretz, M. (2018, June 13). The job description is obsolete. Forbes. Retrieved from www.
forbes.com/sites/marissaperetz/2018/06/13/the-job-description-is-obsolete/#44c91d c975b8

Riggio, R. E. (2019). Introduction. In R. E. Riggio (Ed.), What’s wrong with leader- ship:
Improving leadership research and practice (pp. 1–6). New York: Taylor & Fran-
cis/Routledge.

Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The art of followership: How
great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rost, J. C.
(2008). Followership: An outmoded concept. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen
(Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp.
53–66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schyns, B., & Meindl, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explo-
rations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and

subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97–105.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83–104.

RONALD E. RIGGIO, PhD, is the Henry R. Kravis Professor of Leadership and Organizational
Psychology and former director of the Kravis Leadership Insti- tute at Claremont McKenna
College and a visiting scholar at Churchill Col- lege, Cambridge University. Dr. Riggio is a
leadership scholar with more than a dozen authored or edited books and more than 150
articles/book chapters. His research interests are in leadership, organizational communication,
and social competence. He is part of the Fullerton Longitudinal Study, examining leader- ship
development across the lifespan (from 1 year of age and through middle adulthood). He has been
actively involved in training young (and not so young) leaders.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ∙ DOI: 10.1002/yd

23733357, 2020, 167, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/yd.20395 by L

iberty U niversity, W
iley O nline L

ibrary on [29/06/2023]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marissaperetz/2018/06/13/the-job-description-is-obsolete/
#44c91dc975b8
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marissaperetz/2018/06/13/the-job-description-is-obsolete/
#44c91dc975b8
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marissaperetz/2018/06/13/the-job-description-is-obsolete/
#44c91dc975b8

 1 Why Followership?
o The Followers Have Always Been There, But Have Been Hidden
o Theories of Followers and Followership
o Whither Followership?
o What About the Implications for Practice?
o Conclusion
o References

LDR 804 STUDENT RESPONSES

ORIGINAL QUESTION- Culture affects the workplace as well as the leaders within the
organization. What are some of the most notable effects of diversity on leadership and
organizational behavior? Support your view and provide specific examples.

Student 1- Justin

Diversity in leadership and organizations can lead to differences and the creation of obstacles
that can prevent employees from contributing ideas that can support the organization. To combat
these obstacles, literature has cultivated inclusive leadership as a way to create a working
environment as a way to ensure belongingness for the contribution of all employees. The
definition of inclusive leadership revolves around the contribution of employees and the
elimination of obstacles for increased employee contribution is vital for leaders to utilize
inclusive leadership practices. In order to eliminate obstacles, leaders and organizations alike
must create an inclusive working environment that influences organizational inclusion. Kuknor
and Bhattacharya (2020) expressed that leaders play a crucial role in creating and framing
various initiatives to facilitate inclusion in the workplace. They supported this claim by
explaining that leadership is one of the key dimensions in influencing organizational culture and
business performance. As leadership is a factor in organizational inclusion and a key factor in
business performance, it is important for leaders to consider organizational inclusion as a
potential factor in business outcomes. Randel et al. (2018) supported this by finding that member
perceptions of inclusion in a workgroup led to positive outcomes that benefit the work group and
organization. For leaders to utilize inclusive leadership practices, they must create an inclusive
working environment where individuals feel organizationally inclusive. Additionally, when
employees or subordinates feel that they are a part of an inclusive working environment they are
more likely to contribute ideas that can benefit the work group and organization.

Student 2- Katrin

Organizational culture is what differentiates one organization from another. Each organization
will create and develop their own culture of value and beliefs which will mirror the
organization's brand.

I teach at an elementary school in a rural community. In this school setting, the organization's
culture includes the values and belief systems of the employees, students, and community. The
cultural responsiveness of an organization determines its overall success, (Khan, et al., 2022).
The organizational commitment of employees is linked to the organizational culture within the
work environment, (Khan, et al., 2022). When employees do not feel that the organization
prioritizes the overall well-being of employees, they are less likely to continue working for that
organization. Over the last 15 years, I have noticed that when a new superintendent or principal
comes into the district and shakes up the culture, the employees and community members do not
always respond positively. School districts often have traditions, celebrations and school pride
which may or may not align with the results to be achieved. Indicators of organizational culture
include; innovation, risk taking, attention to detail, being oriented to the results to be achieved,
relationships, values, identity, work aggression and work stability, (Wahib et al., 2023).

Student 3- Brian

Hello class. At first blush while reading this question the two themes of culture and diversity
attracted my attention. I am a northerner, born and raised in Massachusetts for almost 66
years. Two years ago, we moved to the south, particularly North Carolina. Trust me when I
write, many in this area in 2023 do not like Northerners. It was so bad that we started to tell
people we were from Rhode Island as that seemed more acceptable than Massachusetts. I
secured a job with an organization that is made up with almost 100% locals. This organization
is diverse but culturally the organization is sick. So much for southern hospitality. Often
times, breakdown in an organizations culture develops into ethical issues. I share this story to
address that this is one of the most notable effects with culture I have to offer in organizational
behavior. Ethical dilemmas often address culture as only one aspect of making good decisions
(Juntuen et al., 2023). An argument could be made that this sick culture raises an ethical
dilemma with respect to the organization mission, vision and values statement.
image4.jpeg

image5.jpeg

image6.jpeg

image7.jpeg
image8.jpeg

image9.jpeg

image10.jpeg

image11.jpeg

image12.jpeg
image13.jpeg

image14.jpeg

image15.jpeg

image16.jpeg
image17.jpeg

image18.jpeg

image1.jpeg

image19.jpeg

image20.jpeg
image21.jpeg

image22.jpeg

image23.jpeg

image24.jpeg

image25.jpeg
image26.jpeg

image27.jpeg

image28.jpeg

image2.jpeg
image29.jpeg

image30.jpeg

image31.jpeg

image32.jpeg

image33.jpeg
image34.jpeg

image35.jpeg

image36.jpeg

image37.jpeg

image38.jpeg
image3.jpeg

image39.jpeg

image40.jpeg

image41.jpeg
image42.jpeg

image43.jpeg

image44.jpeg

image45.jpeg
image4.jpeg
image5.jpeg

image6.jpeg

image7.jpeg

image8.jpeg

image9.jpeg
image10.jpeg

image11.jpeg

image12.jpeg

image13.jpeg
image14.jpeg

image15.jpeg

image16.jpeg

image17.jpeg

image18.jpeg
image1.jpeg

image19.jpeg

image20.jpeg

image21.jpeg

image22.jpeg
image23.jpeg

image24.jpeg

image25.jpeg

image26.jpeg
image27.jpeg

image28.jpeg

image2.jpeg

image29.jpeg

image30.jpeg
image31.jpeg

image32.jpeg

image33.jpeg

image34.jpeg

image35.jpeg
image36.jpeg

image37.jpeg

image38.jpeg

image3.jpeg
image39.jpeg

image40.jpeg

image41.jpeg

image42.jpeg
image4.jpeg

image5.jpeg
image6.jpeg

image7.jpeg

image8.jpeg

image9.jpeg

image10.jpeg
image11.jpeg

image12.jpeg

image13.jpeg

image14.jpeg

image15.jpeg
image16.jpeg

image17.jpeg

image18.jpeg

image1.jpeg
image19.jpeg

image20.jpeg

image21.jpeg

image22.jpeg

image23.jpeg
image24.jpeg

image25.jpeg

image26.jpeg

image27.jpeg

image28.jpeg
image2.jpeg

image29.jpeg

image30.jpeg

image31.jpeg
image32.jpeg

image33.jpeg

image34.jpeg

image35.jpeg

image36.jpeg
image37.jpeg

image38.jpeg

image3.jpeg